[Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Thu May 5 16:44:13 BST 2011

On 6 May 2011 01:34, Simone Saviolo <simone.saviolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/5 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
>> On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing:
>> > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29
>> That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and
>> even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical
>> presence, which is the argument against tagging historically
>> significant events.
> Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical
> presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical
> interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. I agree it'd be moot
> to map Troy based on the supposed position, but for well-documented POIs we
> shouldn't be discussing whether a fort is still a fort. After all, most
> European castles aren't actually used as castles anymore.

I was just pointing out the extent of the argument against
historic=event, since many historically significant places won't exist
any more, but that doesn't detract from their importance, and you
summed up my argument about having a place to tag, I agree 100% that
only places that are known specifically should be mapped.

More information about the Tagging mailing list